Talk:Winton Train/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 14:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I will review. I will work through the body of the article first, returning to the lead at the end. Please indicate where issues have been addressed below the issues, maybe using the  Done template. I would prefer it if you do not strike out comments, as it makes it much more difficult to read the review at a later date. Bob1960evens (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Preliminary checks

• Trianon links to a disambiguation page, rather than an article.

 Done removed link. Cloudz679 17:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• I get a connection error on External link "Lady Milena Grenfell-Baines talks ...".

 Done fixed link. Cloudz679 17:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• The Winton Train official site link redirects to somewhere else. url needs updating.

 Done removed url. Cloudz679 17:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The lead and the Background section

Despite my comment about reviewing the lead last, I have decided to mention it first, because the structure of the article needs a little attention. Quoting from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects" and "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." As it stands, there is quite a bit of stuff in the lead which is not adequately covered in the article, and the article relies too heavily on the lead for its context. The article should stand on its own, with the lead acting as a summary. So looking at the first two subsections, we have ...

• "The project was announced ..."
• "The train was run ..."
• "At the time of the original Winton trains ..."

All of these need introducing as part of the article, rather than just in the lead, so we know which project, which train, and what an original Winton train was. Perhaps a way forward is to incorporate most of the first paragraph of the lead into the Background section, and have another go at summarising it for the lead.

? Made changes based on the feedback here. It may need another reading. Cloudz679 21:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Having reworked it, the phrase "organised eight trains to transport in total 669 mainly Jewish Czech and Slovak refugee children from Czechoslovakia" is virtually repeated further down the section. Suggest the first one doesn't need the numbers of children, while the second one does.

 Done first instance of number removed. Cloudz679 07:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Background

Inspiration by Goodness project

• The final paragraph is a single sentence, and seems to introduce a political element to the project, which is not an obvious jump from what comes before. Can it be expanded a little? Alternatively, if the information from the lead is incorporated here, perhaps the preceding paragraph could be split at "The project was to follow on ..." and this sentence added to the second half of it.

 Done took the second option. Cloudz679 21:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Original Winton trains

• In 1939 he cut off a trip to a Swiss holiday resort..." "cut short" would be better than "cut off", and the sentence is quite difficult to read as it runs on. Suggest "In 1939 he cut short a trip to a Swiss holiday resort to go to Prague, having heard of a growing refugee crisis resulting from the German occupation of Czechoslovakia from a friend. His friend was working in the British embassy for the British Committee for Refugees from Czechoslovakia, which was already working to help adults escape from Czechoslovakia." or somesuch.

 Done reworded. Cloudz679 20:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Having checked the refs, this should probably been "called off" or "cancelled", since he did not start the holiday.

 Done used the latter. Cloudz679 07:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• "On learning of the situation of the refugee children who could not leave unnaccompanied..." again reads awkwardly. How about "When he learned that the children could not leave the country unless accompanied ..." or somesuch.

 Done reworded. Cloudz679 20:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• "... and the finding of the receiving families in Britain". Awkward. How about "... and finding the families in Britain who would receive the children." or somesuch.

 Done reworded. Cloudz679 20:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• "some of the children actually got off the trains at Harwich, being placed with local families." Was this their intended destination? It is not clear whether they should have disembarked here or not, in view of the word "actually". And I suggest "being placed" would be better as "where they were placed".

 Done reworded after consultation with the reference. Cloudz679 20:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

2009 Winton Train

Journey

• "The motive power for the train journey was provided by six different steam locomotives in each country" suggests that each country provided six locomotives, whereas it was six in total. Try rewording a little.

 Done reworded. Cloudz679 20:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• "on the Essex / Suffolk county boundary" would read better as "on the county boundary between Essex and Suffolk" to avoid the slash.

 Done reworded. Cloudz679 20:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• "travelled via Colchester railway station and Chelmsford railway station" would read better as "travelled via Colchester and Chelmsford". You can use the {rws|Colchester} template, so that it will display as Colchester, but still link to the railway station.

 Done reformatted. Cloudz679 20:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• "Platform 10 was also the platform number that the original Winton trains had used.[6] (Although the actual platforms had been reconfigured in the 1980s as part of the station's redevelopment)." The "also" is not required. The text in brackets is not a sentence. Suggest "Platform 10 was the platform number that the original Winton trains had used,[6] although the actual numbers had been reconfigured in the 1980s as part of the station's redevelopment." or somesuch.

 Done reworded. Cloudz679 20:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• "It's wonderful to see you all after 70 years, Don't leave it quite so long until we meet here again." Needs a full stop after years, or a semicolon with a lowercase d on "don't".

 Done reformatted. Cloudz679 20:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Motive power and rolling stock

• This section reads too much like a locomotive spotters journal, rather than an encyclopedia. Try to write it in flowing text without all the brackets. As a suggestion, it could be

"Travelling through the Czech Republic from Prague to Furth im Wald, the train was double-headed by locomomotives No. 486.007 and 498.022, with 486.007 leading as the train left Prague. No. 486.007, known as the Green Anton, is a preserved steam locomotive built in 1936 which is based in Vrútky, Slovakia, and is owned by Slovak Republic Railways (ŽSR). It is one of the de:ČSD-Baureihe 486.0 class, and has a green livery. No. 498.022 has a blue livery, is one of the de:ČSD-Baureihe 498.0 class, and is owned by Czech Railways, who store it at Libeň in Prague, Czech Republic." Since the article is part of three projects, (Trains, Jewish History, and Czeck Republic), we need it to appeal to a wide range of interests. The following two paragraphs will need similar treatment.

 Done reworded per your suggestion, more or less. Cloudz679 20:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I have just realised that the de: is a link to the German wikipedia, and so would be better displayed as ČSD-Baureihe 498.0.

 Not done interwiki link in-text as recommended did not display (diff). Cloudz679 20:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• "built by the A1 Steam Locomotive Trust, whose construction was begun in 1994 and completed in 2008" The "whose" sounds like construction of the A1 Steam Locomotive Trust. Suggest "construction of which began in 1994 and was completed in 2008."

 Done reworded. Cloudz679 20:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• "the first president of Czechoslovakia, and which entered service on 7 March 1930" The "and" is superfluous.

 Done word removed. Cloudz679 20:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Future trains

• This is another one-sentence paragraph, and indeed a one-sentence section. It needs expanding, perhaps with details of where other trains ran from and thus what might be suitable routes, or incorporating into another section.

 Done found another source, renamed the section. Cloudz679 23:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

That's the text reviewed. I'll be looking at the images and references next. Back soon. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

All the images are suitably licenced, and the refs support the facts as presented.

The formal bit

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See comments above

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Just two further comments as a result of the reference checks and the reworking. Since you have already dealt with most of the comments, I will not put it on hold. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

All comments have now been addressed. Congratulations. I am now passing this as a Good Article. It was a subject about which I knew nothing, and I have learnt from it. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)